I'll throw a coal into this fire

[Dr Adequate]

To all skeptics in here: now I understand why some of you resort to insults and sarcasm out of sheer frusration.

Let's just check if we got the same result... because you, and other trolls like you, twist our words when discussing scepticism just as freely as you twist rppa's when discussing religion? That's what I got.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Fopr example, the stupid troll posts...

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint." I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

... and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying, and that rppa has not "evaded the question". But she has lied and lied again and again about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward.

 

[rppa]

Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about?

No, not a clue. I'm fascinated by Biblical history, but it runs out of my head as soon as I'm done hearing it.


"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it.

Yes you did.

Did not, did not. At any rate, I tried to clarify I was talking about extra-biblical doctrine added by church leaders. Is that clear enough? (Probably not).

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I'm not in my library.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint."

When you quote my viewpoint and it isn't mine, I consider that "making up my viewpoint".

I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

I'm not trying to be evasive. You seem to be under the impression that you have asked me a question I haven't answered. I have no idea what that might be.

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

Yes. My answer would be "No".

And my answer to "What kind of Christian are you?" would be "the kind who would have been burned at the stake a couple of hundred years ago".


So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

Beats me. Was there a pre JC god? All we've got is the OT, which is a bunch of writings by a bunch of fallible humans. I have no opinion on the "pre JC god". And very little on the "post JC god".

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Not trying to be difficult. I've answered every time I've been aware of a question. Not sure what question you think I've evaded.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

If you're interested in the ideosyncratic self-made theology of a single, not very scholarly person, sure. Seems kind of a limited field of study. Certainly won't give you any insights into the theology of anyone else self-identified as Christian here.

So ask. As I said, I am not aware of any question you've asked which I haven't answered. Truly. I am a contrary bastard, but a sincerely contrary one, and I don't mind answering.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea.

I hate being misquoted.

I'm asking you questions about Christianity.

Advice: Asking me questions about my personal theology may not be a good way to get there.

You did say you were a Christian, right?

Not in this thread, and not ever in direct conversation with you. However, it is true I apply that label to myself. It is also true that my theology has been described by DrAdequate as classic agnosticism.

Pain in the ass, aren't I? But if you really, for some reason, want to ask me about my own bizarre views on Christianity, feel free.

 

[Ipecac]

I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another? I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

 

[turtle]

No. This would be a question that I'm asking you out of curiosity.

OK, out of curiosity, you're asking me "If everyone follows JC and/or the Bible correctly, then why are there so many denominations?"

Since I don't agree with your premise,

You "don't agree with my premise? It's not a "premise." It's a question. Do you deny that there are numerous Christian denominations? yes or no?

I can't figure out how I'm supposed to answer. [/B]

Of course you can't. You haven't been able to answer most of my questions. But try. It's a simple question.

Out of curiosity, why if Sylvester Stallone is the greatest actor of our time, didn't he win a lifetime Oscar this year? I'm curious what your answer to this is.

You've proved my point! It may be youropinion that he is the greatest actor of all time. Certainly not mine. Furthermore, if I am of the opinion he stinks, and I happen to be on the Oscar committee, and you are not, it doesn't matter what you think, but more importantly, it doesn't matter if you're right, -- you may be -- but I'm the one with the power! My vote counts, yours doesn't.

LOL, then why bother?

Why bother what?

Why bother believing in the religion?

It is your opinion, your interpretation of what JC, the authors of the NT, OT, whatever-T, etc. 'really meant.'

Yes, it is my opinion of what JC "really meant". When we choose our moral ideal, what else do we have except our best attempt at figuring out what that ideal is?

Everything after "the authors" is stuff you added that I didn't say.

By the way, if one believes the Bible is the literal word of God/JC, then following "both JC and the Bible" would not be "logically impossible."

That's correct. You are gradually circling closer to my own viewpoint, in between interjecting whoever you are channeling.

Ha! Funny.

So when I said it's logically impossible to follow both JC and the Bible, and when I said that the message started to go wrong with Paul, I'm pretty sure I'm saying I don't think the Bible is the literal word of God.

When I say that everything past the first four books of the Gospel is where humans started to inject their own prejudices, starting with Paul, and got it wrong, I am not saying the Bible, even the post Gospel books of the NT, are the literal word of JC.

When I say that the four Gospels were written decades after the time of Christ, I am not saying that the four Gospels are the literal word of JC.

Let me repeat it: The authors of the NT got it wrong.

You don't know that. You can think it's possible, but it's not a fact. You have no idea if they got it wrong or not.

I think the message that comes through in the four Gospels is reasonably intact, but there are obvious personal notes added and differences in emphases.

You will not get a statement from me that the authors of any book in the Bible were anything but fallible humans, doing fallible translations. Any attempt to create such a position for the purposes of having someone to argue with is what we call a "strawman".

What's the "ideal?" Seems to be quite elusive. If it weren't, everyone would be in agreement. Simple.

It is. We're not. Simple, isn't it?

But as I said, I admire the Quakers. I think they seem to be closest.

So why am I not a Quaker? Because I don't have the courage to be a pacifist. I think a military is still necessary.

But wait, doesn't that mean my personal beliefs are against what I think is the ideal I've said I'm trying to follow, my view of JC's original intent?

Yes. On that score, I fall short. I just think I'm being more honest than people who want to claim God fights on their side in a war. Wars are not Christian. They may be necessary, but when you fight a war you are turning your back on the Christian ideal. If Jesus were here today, there's no question in my mind he'd be a pacifist. And against capital punishment, which once again I am uncertain that I believe is never appropriate.

It will be interesting to see what the strawman version of me looks like next.

If you knew what "strawman' meant we might have something there.

 

[turtle]

I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another? I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

I don't see how I can possiblly agree with much of what Gecko or rppa say, since:

I am not a Christian.

I don't believe the texts in the OT and NT are "divine."

And a whole bunch of other stuff.

 

[rppa]

I'm confused. (Okay, this may not be breaking news, I admit.)

Is it my imagination or do RPPA and Turtle agree and are merely talking past one another?

In my opinion, yes. I already told Turtle that.

I kept thinking they were addressing someone else as they both seemed to be saying the same things but they have continued to hammer on each other.

I got so confused I stopped reading their back and forth, but don't they basically agree?

I'm confused too. Turtle *is* addressing someone else, some shadow version of me.

And I still don't know what the mysterious question I'm evading might be.

 

[turtle]

Originally posted by turtle [/i]
Are you referring the Council of Nicea?

You're the one who brought it up, not me. Don't you know what you're talking about? [/b]

No, not a clue. I'm fascinated by Biblical history, but it runs out of my head as soon as I'm done hearing it.[/B]

"church leaders outside of the Bible?" WTF? Please explain.

Can't. Didn't say it.

Yes you did.

Did not, did not. At any rate, I tried to clarify I was talking about extra-biblical doctrine added by church leaders. Is that clear enough? (Probably not).

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".[/B][/QUOTE]

Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

'kay.

Now.

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations. Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

By the way, what kind of Christian are you? I'm not a Christian, but I have a Bible in my library.

I'm not in my library.

I am not "making up" your "viewpoint."

When you quote my viewpoint and it isn't mine, I consider that "making up my viewpoint".[/B][/QUOTE]

I am trying to understand what you are saying, and trying to get you to be clear. Do not evade the question.

I'm not trying to be evasive. You seem to be under the impression that you have asked me a question I haven't answered. I have no idea what that might be.

Snort!

Stop being so defensive and worried about "who are you quoting now" -- I didn't put that in quotes, so it should be clear that I am not quoting anyone. I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

Yes. My answer would be "No".

You don't have an answer?

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

And my answer to "What kind of Christian are you?" would be "the kind who would have been burned at the stake a couple of hundred years ago".


So pre JC god was just what? Messing around?

Beats me. Was there a pre JC god?

You tell me. You're the Christian.

All we've got is the OT, which is a bunch of writings by a bunch of fallible humans. I have no opinion on the "pre JC god". And very little on the "post JC god".

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

Not trying to be difficult. I've answered every time I've been aware of a question. Not sure what question you think I've evaded.

Part of why I'm asking you questions is because I do not understand much of your points. Therefore, I ask. See how it works?

If you're interested in the ideosyncratic self-made theology of a single, not very scholarly person, sure. Seems kind of a limited field of study. Certainly won't give you any insights into the theology of anyone else self-identified as Christian here.

So ask. As I said, I am not aware of any question you've asked which I haven't answered. Truly. I am a contrary bastard, but a sincerely contrary one, and I don't mind answering.

As I said, why you're so defensive I have no idea.

I hate being misquoted.

I'm asking you questions about Christianity.

Advice: Asking me questions about my personal theology may not be a good way to get there.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

You did say you were a Christian, right?

Not in this thread, and not ever in direct conversation with you. However, it is true I apply that label to myself. It is also true that my theology has been described by DrAdequate as classic agnosticism.

Pain in the ass, aren't I?[/B][/QUOTE]

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

But if you really, for some reason, want to ask me about my own bizarre views on Christianity, feel free.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

 

[turtle]

Let's just check if we got the same result... because you, and other trolls like you, twist our words when discussing scepticism just as freely as you twist rppa's when discussing religion? That's what I got.

Ah, Dr. A who cannot resist the opportunity to insult me.

I am not a troll. So stop lying, you filthy, vile liar.

 

[turtle]

OK, how's this? I'm the kind who is doing his best to muddle through all the extraneous stuff added over the centuries and figure out what the ideal of human behavior intended by Christ might have been. I'm the kind who won't drop down dead if Christ turns out never to have existed, since the ideal is the important thing.[/B]

Are you a closet Christian?

The "ideal" of Christianity is a Christian ideal, der. Why not some other religion? Obviously it's because, for you, Christianity says something to you that moves you, or you wouldn't (obviously) respond to it so strongly. So you are a Christian. A doubting one, an agnostic Christian even, if there is such a thing, suppose there could be, but, a Christian.

 

[rppa]

Which brings me to another point. Wouldn't anyone, any human, who wrote whatever words appear in the Bible, be also considered "outside of the Bible?"

No, a human who wrote words that are in the bible would be considered, in my view, to be an author of words in the bible. If they're in the Bible, I wouldn't use the phrase "outside of the bible".

Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Not intentionally.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

Yes. So once those people call that collection of words "The Bible", the words in it become "the words in the Bible".

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations.

That's right.

Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

That's right. Also a bunch of oral mythology that may have been passed on for millenia in the Jewish people before being written down in any form. I find that fascinating.

So what strikes you as surreal in that?
I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

You don't have an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. No I don't think JC is God and God is JC.

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

Very wacky, I admit. See words below on "self-made", "ideosyncratic", etc.

However this is not a standpoint in which I am alone. One of my favorite pastors espoused this viewpoint at the hearing at which he was being given his current church. Conservative leaders decided to make an example of him and he actually underwent an ecclesiastical heresy trial. From which he was acquitted, or at least kept his pulpit.

Wonderful human being. Great guy. One of those who is truly leaving the world a better place, in a big way.

Which is what it's all about, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

So you say. Still can't figure out what question you're looking for an answer on.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

Good luck. If you ask 10 million Christians, you'll probably get at least nine million theologies. Good luck making sense of that.

Pain in the ass, aren't I?

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

See when you add words like "big" and "secure", or even "proud", that would be interjecting emotional content that wasn't there. You're extrapolating.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

Sure, but as topics of discussion go, I don't find myself as endlessly fascinating as you seem to. As I said, I'm a really bad place to start if you want to find out something about Christian theology in general. I'm only a good place to start if you want to find out stuff about me. And I don't think I deserve my own personal thread. I'm just not that interesting. Leave that to Ian.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It'd be news to me if there was [a word for female author].

News flash:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

One entry found for authoress.
Main Entry: au·thor·ess
Pronunciation: 'o-th(&-)r&s
Function: noun
: a woman author

Not that I am encouraging use of this archaic term.

 

[turtle]

Fopr example, the stupid troll posts... ...

For example, the stupid skeptoid Dr. A posts another insult and lie filled post for no other reason than to flame, annoy, irritate, and oh, troll.

Dr. A - -never missing an opportunity to be loathsome.

Self appointed skeptoid of all things personally annoying to him.

Wow.

You must have quite a life there kiddo. Just chock full of good times.

and then immediately afterwards quotes the answer rppa gives to the question she asked, just in case we couldn't check for ourselves that she was lying, and that rppa has not "evaded the question".

Yeah, whatever. Care to post the specific example? Dr. "A" -- (wondering why you need to tell us you're "adequate")

But she has lied and lied again and again

Hey, I said, knock it off you moronic clown vile filled filthy liar.

(I'm going on the premise here that since Dr. A can do it, it's okay for me to fling back his very insults to me. If not, gee whiz, so sorry, and maybe the mods here can do something about his non stop abuse. Just, you know, wondering. Thanks.)

about the contents of people's posts on this forum, and it seems that the shame of being exposed again and again as a stupid, pathetic, malicious liar does not deter her --- I don't know why. Perhaps, for some people, lying is its own reward.

Hey, you added "malicious" to the list. Did you get a new dictionary?

You are SO boring.

 

[Moose]

Thanks Skeptigirl, someone already mentionned it back somewhere before the thread got hijacked.

Turtle and rppa, should you two be playing the religious sophistry game in the religion forum? This is getting more than a little off-topic* for the thread (and forum, for that matter).

(* Derailed, actually. Not unlike one of Ian's hijacks. About as "interesting" too. IMO.)

 

[El_Spectre]

Sigh... we have people attempting to argue minutiae of a book cobbled together from dozens of other books, and bastardized, changed and miscopied for thousands of years.

At risk of being a tad insensitive, I submit this for consideration:

 

[turtle]

Ooooo, I love it! We're getting surreal now. My favorite.

Not intentionally.

Religious men came together to decide what should go in, and what should go out, of the Bible. Right?

Yes. So once those people call that collection of words "The Bible", the words in it become "the words in the Bible".

Meanwhile, of course, there is the Bible itself. What is the Bible? Words. A collection of a whole lot of words. Written by people. Men. Humans. Their words, their interpretations.

That's right.

Literally it's not "outside the Bible" I suppose, but my point is: it was written by men, people, humans, with their own biases, judegements, agendas, ideas, ideals, opinions, interpretations. So it's all just that, and nothing more.

That's right. Also a bunch of oral mythology that may have been passed on for millenia in the Jewish people before being written down in any form. I find that fascinating.

("may have been?" uh huh.)

So what strikes you as surreal in that?

I meant the direction the thread is going in general. I thought you weren't a literalist, lol?

I am asking you if, being a Christian, you believe that JC is God, and God is JC etc. It's a question. Do you have an answer?

You don't have an answer?

Yes, I have an answer. No I don't think JC is God and God is JC.

Oh. Then you're not a Christian.

Or you don't believe that God is Jesus? So do you mean Jesus is Jesus, and not God? What kind of wacky Christian thing is that?

[/B][/QUOTE]Very wacky, I admit. See words below on "self-made", "ideosyncratic", etc.[/B][/QUOTE]

See above.

However this is not a standpoint in which I am alone. One of my favorite pastors espoused this viewpoint at the hearing at which he was being given his current church. Conservative leaders decided to make an example of him and he actually underwent an ecclesiastical heresy trial. From which he was acquitted, or at least kept his pulpit.

Wonderful human being. Great guy. One of those who is truly leaving the world a better place, in a big way.

Might be a peach of guy. Fine. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me though. Not that I care, except for sake of argument.

Which is what it's all about, isn't it?

I'm asking you questions, answer them please.

So you say. Still can't figure out what question you're looking for an answer on.

Well, keep trying.

I can't imagine a more interesting and valid insight into the minds of Christians than to ask those who profess to be Christians. It's the anthropologist in me, lol.

Good luck. If you ask 10 million Christians, you'll probably get at least nine million theologies. Good luck making sense of that.

Absolutely. I find that completely interesting. Fact is, we do have "nine million theologies" ....

Pain in the ass, aren't I?

If you want to proudly display that label feel free, if it makes you feel all big and secure and all.

See when you add words like "big" and "secure", or even "proud", that would be interjecting emotional content that wasn't there. You're extrapolating.

No s***! Wow.

"For some reason?" Uh, it's a forum right? Where people get together and discuss things?

Sure, but as topics of discussion go, I don't find myself as endlessly fascinating as you seem to.

Hey, you and the other guy started this about this topic, not me.

As I said, I'm a really bad place to start if you want to find out something about Christian theology in general. I'm only a good place to start if you want to find out stuff about me. And I don't think I deserve my own personal thread. I'm just not that interesting. Leave that to Ian.

Har har.

You're being evasive, you have been throughout. Fine. That's the way you want to play, I'll stop. Guess you think you can post but others aren't supposed to respond. Got it.

 

[turtle]

Sigh... we have people attempting to argue minutiae of a book cobbled together from dozens of other books, and bastardized, changed and miscopied for thousands of years.

At risk of being a tad insensitive, I submit this for consideration:

How very interesting. Is it because I'm a woo? Trying to find out exactly what someone means, is saying, believes, asking for specifics, for citations, is par for the course here? And yet when I do it, I'm called names by that snooze fest Dr. A and compared to Ian?

LOL.

I agree, it's not getting anywhere, and I'm fine with giving up the thread. I just thought, you know, silly me, after all, I am a woo, that trying to discuss something and get at things was the deal around here.

I'm wrong, again!

 

[KingMerv00]

Re: Re: I'll throw a coal into this fire

Strightforward visual illusion it's a contrast effect. simular to this:

I didn't follow this post, but I just want to say something...I really HATE that illusion. It screws with my mind.

I saved it as a jpeg file and messed around with it on the paint program. Crazy stuff.

 

[El_Spectre]

How very interesting. Is it because I'm a woo?

Nope. I don't use that term anyway... it encourages an "us vs. them" mindframe that I think is counterproductive.

No, posting pictures like mine isn't particularly productive either.

It's not your beliefs. The bible is a collection of stories, most of which have changed (if only through translation) numerous times. Moreover, the main characters are often supernatural.

So, we have ancient stories with non-human psychologies, and the stories aren't accurate (to the originals) anyway. Even if I believed the stories, they are so distorted at this point that quibbling over meanings of individual verses (and indeed words!) seems silly to me.

 

[rppa]

("may have been?" uh huh.)

Perhaps you know more than I do about the length of time during which Jewish history was entirely oral. Yes, "may have been millenia". Do you have a closer figure?

Oh. Then you're not a Christian.

As an anthropologist, you should learn that there is not a single block of beliefs, including on the divinity of Jesus, which defines a Christian. As I said, I know at least one highly-respected Christian minister who also does not believe Jesus was divine.

Since you profess ignorance on the range of Christian beliefs, it seems odd for you to pass judgement on who is and isn't allowed to call themselves a "real" Christian.

Might be a peach of guy. Fine. Doesn't sound like a Christian to me though. Not that I care, except for sake of argument.

So now you're an expert. This no longer sounds like a person with idle curiosity.

Yet he's a minister, he leads a large, thriving flock, who feel he provides for their spiritual needs, he's highly respected in his denomination (which is mainstream). The elected leaders of his denomination heard him out and decided he was still qualified to be an ordained minister in their denomination. Why do you feel the urgent need to go in there and defrock him as "not a Christian"?

Absolutely. I find that completely interesting. Fact is, we do have "nine million theologies" ....

So I tried to tell you. But when I didn't fit your pre-conceptions, you suddenly decided you were an expert on which theologies were and weren't allowed in the spectrum.

Newsflash: In every denomination, a million people will give you a million different answers about their beliefs, and all will call themselves Christians. That's just part of the messy business of being human beings.